Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S3 · Q25 We are in a new

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

We are in a new industrial revolution that requires management trainees to develop “action learning” from real experience within business and industry, rather than getting tied up with theory and academia.

Conclusion (Therefore / should)

Business schools should allow business executives to set curricula for management trainees that could then be taught by academics.

Evidence

In business school, we need "action learning" from real experience within business and industry, not theory and academia.

We need to study real cases, not hypothetical ones.

Business schools have been slow to respond to these needs. They seem unable to tear themselves away from the academic, hypothetical stuff.

Evaluate

This conversation seems to describe a Problem (we want more actual real world experience taught in business school, but they're teaching academic theory and doing hypothetical case).

The conclusion seems to offer a Solution: business executives will save us! (this is the first time anyone has had that thought unironically)

Whenever a Conclusion on an Assumption question has a New Term that only shows up in the Conclusion, we can nearly count on the fact that the correct answer will discuss this New Term.

What is being assumed about business executives, or about the curricula they would set if they were in charge of business schools?

We're assuming that they would solve the problem -- they would set curricula that involved "action learning" from real experience with real cases.

Whenever we have a Plan / Goal type setup, we have to assume that the Plan is - a feasible solution - going to get the cooperation it needs - doesn't backfire

So here we need to assume that business execs would feasibly set curricula we'd be happier with, and that they'd be willing to do so. We need to assume that academics could then teach this curricula that business execs came up with, and that they'd be willing to do so. And we need to assume that having business execs set curricula wouldn't cause some backfire consequence that would make us worse off (or just-as-bad) overall.

If the author ends up saying "we should do this Plan", then she's assuming it's the best available plan. If the author ends up saying "we must do this Plan", then she's assuming it's the only available plan.

Goal

Look for an answer affirming that business executives, if they were setting the curricula, would do it more the way we're wishing for (action learning from real experience with real cases), and that academics would then be able/willing to teach that. Or look for an answer that rules out an objection to putting business execs in charge.

25.

The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?

Academics in business schools have
Too Strong: no
The author doesn't have to assume that business school professors have ZERO practical business experience that's valuable. The author is only complaining that business schools too often teach hypothetical cases and academic theory. But that's could just be a choice of the school heads who set curriculum. That wouldn't necessarily indicate that the academics at these schools have ZERO practical business experience of value.
4% picked this
Academics in business schools deal
Too Strong: only
The argument said that trainees in business too often find themselves studying hypothetical cases instead of real ones. This answer is making it seem like they only deal with hypotheticals.
3% picked this
Academics are not capable of
Too Strong: incapable Weakens
This answer has that "ruling out" with not/no form that so many correct answers have. If we negate this, does it become an objection? Academics are capable of teaching suitably relevant management curricula? That would actually strengthen the author's argument. The answer, as written, is weakening the argument, because the author's plan for business execs to set relevant curricula and then for academics to teach it. This answer makes it seem like that latter part of the author's plan is not feasible.
12% picked this
Academic training outside of business
Flip a Fact Unknown Comparison
We only talked about what was happening inside business schools. We know that they are not very responsive to the needs of business schools, but that doesn't mean that other people are more responsive. It's possible that no one is responsive. If I say "children raised in Wyoming are afraid of the dark", does that imply that, "children outside of Wyoming are less afraid of the dark than are children in Wyoming"? Heavens, no! It's possible that all children are afraid of the dark. So why did I single out Wyoming, then? No reason, I just felt like it. That's my prerogative as a speaker of truths. I'm allowed to do that. I'm allowed to say "people who were born in Delaware are Americans." That doesn't mean I'm also saying "people who weren't born in Delaware aren't Americans". Necessary Assumption is famous for these Flip a Fact answers.
8% picked this
Correct
Today’s business executives have valuable
Why this is right
This is a surprising correct answer to me. If we negate it, it does seem to weaken, though: Today's business execs don't have any valuable insight into business that academics in business schools don't already have. It makes the author's proposed solution seem like more of a dumb one. If business execs don't have some special insight to contribute, then why do we need them to set curricula that can then be taught by academics? If I were hating on this answer choice, I would complain that the author was not necessarily saying business executives were needed for their insight. We could interpret the paragraph to mean that the author thinks business executives are just needed for their willingness to study real cases rather than academic theory. But there doesn't seem to be a better answer worth fighting for. And since the author is thinking we're just using the business execs to set the curricula (but academics will still teach it), the author seems to think we need the business execs in order to get the curricula right. And that presumes that they have some valuable insight that academics lack.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
73% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free